Opinion
570171/03.
Decided December 4, 2003.
Defendant MG Inc. appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, entered August 19, 2002 (Wilma Guzman, J.) which denied its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Before: Present: SUAREZ, P.J., McCOOE, GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
Order entered August 19, 2002 (Wilma Guzman, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.
Defendant's submission below, consisting largely if not exclusively of "unconfirmed" hearsay evidence as to the cause of the fire, was insufficient to satisfy its initial burden of proving entitlement to summary judgment ( Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). In any event, the record, as a whole, including the Fire Department's investigation report submitted by plaintiff, raises several questions of fact, including, but not limited to, whether defendant provided smoke detectors in the relevant apartment as required ( see, Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2045[b]) or took reasonable steps to abate the "untidy" and cramped apartment condition of which its principal admittedly was aware and, if it did neither, whether any such breach substantially contributed to the property damage claimed by plaintiff ( see, Baker v. Riverhouse Realty Co., 300 A.D.2d 214; cf., Fairclough v. 679 Magenta LLC, ___ A.D.2d ___, 765 N.Y.S.2d 623).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.